DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Paccar Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/493)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 25 JUNE 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Paccar Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Paccar Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 25 June 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr V Pepi of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent, that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR709680.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a protected action ballot to be conducted among employees of Paccar Australia Pty Ltd. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on the conditions under which the ballot could be held, specifically the timing and content of the ballot notice. Paccar Australia contested the union's proposed timing and the manner in which the ballot notice would inform employees of the potential action.

The Commission had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot notice complied with the relevant legislative requirements. This included assessing whether the timing of the ballot was reasonable and whether the notice provided adequate information to the employees. The AMWU argued that the notice was appropriate, while Paccar Australia contended that the notice was misleading and the timing was inappropriate.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot notice did not adequately inform employees of the potential action and the consequences of the proposed industrial action. The Commission also considered the timing of the ballot, determining that it was not reasonable given the circumstances. Consequently, the application for the protected action ballot was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was that the AMWU's application for a protected action ballot was dismissed, as the proposed ballot notice did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission held that the notice was misleading and the timing was unreasonable. No further action could be taken by the union without further amendments to the ballot notice and approval from the Commission.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Paccar Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established